connector_google_calendar_fetchFetch a single Google Calendar resource by its native ID to retrieve event or calendar details for local workflows.
Fetch a single resource from Google Calendar by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_id | Yes | Native resource ID to fetch |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'fetch', which reads as a benign read, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. That is a direct conflict in the safety signal an agent relies on for a connector call. No other behavioral context (auth scope, resource types, side effects) is offered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is tight and readable, though the extreme brevity leaves it under-specified rather than optimally sized for a connector call with a contradictory annotation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a connector fetch with no output schema, the description should carry more weight: it does not say what shape a 'resource' takes, what is returned, or what the annotation conflict means in practice. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this call is safe or what it will receive back.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single, self-explanatory parameter, so the baseline is 3. 'By its ID' merely restates the schema's 'Native resource ID to fetch' and adds nothing about which resource types (event, calendar, ACL) the ID may refer to or its expected format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (fetch) plus the resource (a single Google Calendar resource) and the identifying key (its ID). The 'single ... by its ID' phrasing implicitly separates it from the search-style sibling connector_google_calendar_search, though that sibling is never named. A clear, well-scoped purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage signal is the implied prerequisite that you must already hold an ID. There is no statement of when to use this versus connector_google_calendar_search or connector_google_calendar_act, and no exclusions or prerequisites spelled out. An agent must infer the routing itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.